Post-McCutcheon Monday political law links

WHAT MCCUTCHEON MEANS.  Politico.  “The Supreme Court’s decision this week striking down cumulative caps on individual hard-dollar donations was yet another blow to the post-Watergate finance regime that has sought for decades – with only the most modest success – to banish special interests from the political process.”

REFORM HAS MADE THINGS WORSE. WP (Samuelson). “Campaign finance ‘reform’ aims to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist. It not only has failed but has actually made the situation worse.”

READY FOR LOBBYISTS.  Politico.  “Nearly 20 consultants and lobbyists are co-hosting a Ready for Hillary PAC fundraiser Thursday night at Capitol Hill restaurant Johnny’s Half Shell. Hosts and attendees are expected to contribute $2,500 and $1,000, respectively.”

SHAKING THE WORLD.  Courier-Journal.  “The Supreme Court’s decision last week to allow more money in campaigns shook the political world like a 9.0 earthquake.”

MCCUTCHEON DISCUSSION ON C-SPAN.  The former Chairman of the FEC and a representative of Demos discuss McCutcheon here (video).

SON OF SUPER PAC.  Roll Call.  “So what are joint fundraising committees, and what should they be called? Election lawyer Robert Kelner, who chairs Covington & Burling’s election law and political practice group, has already got his answer: ‘super joint fundraising committees’ or ‘super JFCs’ for short.”

MCCUTCHEON AND WHITTEMORE.   Roll Call.  “Whittemore was convicted last year on charges stemming from using straw intermediaries to get around the individual contribution limit of $4,600 in effect in 2007, for contributions to Reid’s campaign.”

MORAIN ON FEC AND CROSSROADS.  Sacramento Bee.  “You might assume that with a 3-3 deadlock, neither side would win. Not so at the FEC. Even though the commission’s lawyers believe the Republicans are mistaken, the GOP commissioners prevailed when a Democratic appointee evidently agreed to authorize the FEC to defend the lawsuit.”

VIEW ON MCCUTCHEON.  Dallas Morning News.  “Technically, the ruling will only affect a few hundred very wealthy donors. It struck down as a violation of the First Amendment the aggregate limit of $123,200 that an individual can disburse among candidates and parties. A wealthy donor now can max out contributions in all U.S. House and Senate races.”

ABOUT THOSE EARMARKING RULES… InsidePoliticalLaw.com.  “But while the Commission has addressed, to a small degree, whether a donor “knows” that a “substantial amount” of a payment will go to a certain candidate, it has never quantified or otherwise addressed the meaning of  ‘substantial.'”

SUPER PAC TEAM.  NOLA.com.  “[Jindal and Bush] teamed up to film an ad in support of Republican political consultant Alex Castellanos’ Super PAC ‘NewRepublican.org.'”

SOLUTION TO MONEY IN POLITICS.  Kinsley.  “The solution when you don’t like someone’s speech is not to silence that person, or that corporation. It’s more and louder speech of your own.”

MORE LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE?  The Motley Fool shares an investor’s view here:  “Clearly, lobbying garners results. But shareholders might take significant issue with the ways and means these results are achieved, if they only knew about them in the first place. Lobbying may never go away, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t demand more transparency in the future. Pressing for more disclosure is the first step toward a more complete dialogue between management and investors.”

MD: PUBLIC FINANCING FOR MOCO. WP. “About half the states, including Maryland, have experimented with varying methods of public financing of campaigns.”

MT:  ATP IS BACK.  Billings Gazette.  “American Tradition Partnership, the conservative ‘dark money’ group the state political practices commissioner says has been involved in illegal electioneering activates since 2008, has resurfaced.”

MT:  SPEECH POLICE ON PATROL.  DailyInterLake.com.  “Our Founding Fathers understood this historical threat to democracy. They anticipated the need for peaceful, periodic government change. So they enshrined, as the first right of individuals against their government in the Bill of Rights, the freedom to assemble, associate, speak, and challenge. People today think our elections are dirtier than ever. Political historians know otherwise.”

NY:  TEST CASE.  Newsday.  “State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has turned out to be a guinea pig in a not-so-grand political experiment that could only be conceived in the backrooms of Albany.”

CAMPAIGNTECHEAST.  Campaign Tech East 2014 is this week.  The event promises to “show you how to be smart with data without breaking the bank, catch you up on the newest social media targeting options, and break down the ingredients of a winning grassroots digital effort.”  I regret I can’t attend this year but hope to follow some of the sessions on Twitter (#CTEast).

DEGREE IN ADVOCACY.  Daily Beast.  My alma mater (one of them) is offering a new degree in international lobbying.

HAVE A GREAT DAY.

More McCutcheon plus today’s political law links

ANOTHER MCCONNELL WIN. National Review. “Since Alito and Roberts were added to the Court, McConnell has been involved in six attempts to dismantle campaign regulations. Six times he has prevailed.”

NAJVAR AND BACKER ON THE CASE. WT. “Shaun McCutcheon won because neither the Federal Election Commission nor the solicitor general could muster any coherent justification for limiting the aggregate political contributions of an American citizen. That is a result everyone in a free society should applaud.”

ALTHOUSE ON HASEN ON MCCUTCHEON.  Here.  “Roberts is taking the First Amendment seriously and stepping up to the classic judicial role of saying what it means and enforcing constitutional rights.”

THE FAILED HISTORY OF CFR. WP. “There has been a steady unraveling of campaign finance laws in the past decade. But, this is also nothing new.”

MCUTCHEON AND SUPER PACS.  Atlantic.  “So even as McCutcheon tips the playing field in favor of wealthy donors over ordinary citizens, it also in a perverse way levels the playing field for politicians, by allowing candidates and political parties to receive larger donations and thus giving them the chance to spend sums closer to what the super PACs do.”

TEACHERS’ UNIONS REACT.  Education Week.  “The teachers’ unions on Wednesday criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down limits on aggregate campaign contributions to federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees.”

OH, DOMINOES.  NYT.  “The sweeping language and logic of Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision on campaign finance may imperil other legal restrictions on money in politics.”

“DARK MONEY” CLASH.  Philly.com.  “The day after the Supreme Court threw aggregate contribution limits out of the window, commissioners from the nation’s campaign finance watchdog agency clashed over an enforcement matter from the 2010 elections.”

WHY HE FIGHTS.  Charles Koch.  “If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I’m dedicated to fighting for that vision. I’m convinced most Americans believe it’s worth fighting for, too.”

THE TEXAS MODEL.  MyHighPlains.com.  “The federal campaign finance system moved a step closer to the Texas model Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down some limits on political donations to federal candidates.”

STATE LAWS NUKED. MJ. Click for their list of “the 11 states (plus DC) where aggregate limits are now likely gutted thanks to the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision.”

HYPOCRISY.  WP (Jennifer Rubin).  “They’ve got their billionaires; the conservatives have theirs. The only difference is liberals hypocritically attack the other guys’ billionaires as bringing about the end of democracy as we know it. The left is up to their armpits in third party money, union money, billionaire money and SuperPAC money. As a Capitol Hill Republican remarked, ‘They have become what they once decried.'”

WHAT THE COURT DID.  Venable.  “Finally, the parade of lawsuits seeking to dismantle federal campaign finance restrictions is likely to continue.”

LATE APRIL FOOLS? WP (Gerken, et al.). “Congress should require that any advertisement funded directly or indirectly by a group that does not disclose its donors acknowledge that fact. This “nondisclosure disclosure” would be simple and truthful: ‘This ad was paid for by “X,” which does not disclose the identity of its donors.’ That could help voters figure out how much trust to put in the ad.”

THE LAW OF EARMARKING.  Perkins Coie.  “[T]he fact remains that the Commission has declined to apply the sort of trip-wire approach to earmarking that Chief Justice Roberts described in his opinion.”

HOOSIERS.  Indy Star.  “No American who doesn’t happen to be a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has done more to shape how elections are run and won in 2012 than Bopp.”

PROS WIN.  NPR.  “One thing seems certain: The decision, which overturned limits on the aggregate amounts individual donors can give to candidates and campaigns, will mean more money sloshing around political campaigns.”

Q AND A.  Heritage.  Hans von Spakovsky breaks down the decision.

NON-EVISCERATION.  Forbes (Paul Sherman).  “Here’s the truth about the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon:  It didn’t actually do all that much, and that’s the real problem.”

REACTION ROUND-UP.  NYT.

THE FLOOD (NOT A “NOAH” REVIEW).  Sacramento Bee.  “Prepare for the Flood of 2014. The U.S. Supreme Court’s latest ruling opens the way for yet more money to inundate political campaigns.”

CONVENTION PUBLIC FUNDING OVER. Dallas Morning News. “It’s official. President Obama signed a law this afternoon that ends public funding for the Democratic and Republican conventions.”

SUPER PAC NUNN ATTACK.  AJC.  “Expect to see quite a bit of the above for the next seven months: A Republican-allied Super PAC is airing television ads starting today attacking Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Michelle Nunn over Obamacare.”

BAUER PROMOTES AND SUPPORTS STATEMENT ON PASO.  Moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com.  “On the more general question of PASO, it would be nice, of course, if Congress had defined the term, or if the Commission could arrive at some reasonably firm definition that everyone would agree is accessible to those of ‘ordinary intelligence.'”

POLITICAL LAW AND FINANCIAL SERVICES.  Steptoe (Jason Abel).  “Political law regimes can pose unique challenges for financial services firms. It is vital for firms’ compliance policies to address these issues and for those responsible for compliance to understand the various jurisdictions’ rules before interactions with government officials.”

CA:  MORE AUDITS ON THE WAY.  LAT.  “California’s ethics and tax agencies now have more power to conduct campaign finance investigations under a law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday.”

GA:  MORE ON DEAL.  AJC.  “The state ethics commission’s former attorney testified Thursday that she was told the agency’s prior leaders were fired for going ‘off the reservation’ in investigating Gov. Nathan Deal.”

ID:  WHAT MCCUTCHEON MEANS FOR IDAHO.  Idaho Statesman.  “Idaho’s limits on campaign contributions are unaffected by Wednesday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision lifting limits on wealthy donors to federal candidates and party committees.”

MT: MOTL ON MCCUTCHEON IN MONTANA. NPR. “[T]he state Commissioner of Political Practices says statewide elections will not be affected that much.”

NJ:  THE END TO PAY TO PLAY?  Law360.com.  “The U.S. Supreme Court’s Wednesday decision striking down aggregate limits on donations to political parties and candidates casts doubt on the constitutionality of similar caps under local pay-to-play ordinances in New Jersey, and may provide ammunition for government contractors and others to challenge the laws, attorneys told Law360.”

NY:  CFR STALL.  NY1.com.  “The push to enact campaign finance reform once again fell short this budget cycle, as leaders instead agreed to take up the issue later in the session and to launch a pilot program for the state comptroller’s race only, a compromise that was blasted by good government groups. NY1’s Bobby Cuza filed the following report.”

NY:  AG REACTS TO MCCUTCHEON.  LongIsland.com.  “The majority decision ignores both the Court’s own precedent and common sense regarding the corrupting influence of unlimited contributions to parties or candidates if they are spread across different committees. Campaign finance laws protect the integrity and fairness of elections and help ensure that everyone—not just the wealthy or powerful corporations—are represented in our system of government.”

NY: LOBBYING NUMBERS IN. NYDN. “Special interests spent $210.5 million lobbying state and local governments in 2013, an increase of $5 million over 2012 and the third highest ever total in state history, the state ethics commission revealed in its annual report Thursday.”

VT:  CONTINGENCY IN PLAY.  Reformer.com.  “The Vermont Legislature approved new campaign finance rules this year as the McCutcheon case was under consideration. Lawmakers included an escape clause for a cap on aggregate limits in the law, pending the results of the case. Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the bill into law early this session.”

UK: CHARITIES DISLIKE LOBBYING ACT. Guardian. “The act has been dubbed the ‘gagging law’ by charities for restrictions it places on their ability to campaign in election periods.”

HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.

Post-McCutcheon political law links

MCCUTCHEON V. FEC.  SCOTUS (PDF).

AGGREGATE LIMITS STRUCK. WP. “On its face, the ruling seems far more limited than Citizens United, which has dramatically increased spending on elections and spawned a new wave of political organizations funded by wealthy individuals.”

WHO WINS? WP. “It’s the biggest campaign financing ruling from the court since the Citizens United ruling and, as such, produces a handful of winners and, yes, some losers. Here they are.”

COVINGTON ADVISORY ON MCCUTCHEON.  Here.

RAMIFICATIONS. Pillsbury. “The ruling in this case may result in the invalidation of aggregate contribution limits of local jurisdictions, such as the Cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco.”

BYE, BYE, BIENNIAL LIMITS.  WSJ.  “In an interview Wednesday, Mr. McCutcheon hailed the decision, saying more money ‘creates more competition and puts more ideas out there. I don’t see how it could hurt anything. We’re talking about free speech in a free country.'”

FEC VIA TWITTER:  “[C]onsidering the impact on its regs.”

SUPREMES OPEN THE DOOR.  Womble Carlyle.

THE FIRST POST-MCCUTCHEON FUNDRAISER. Chicago Sun Times. “After dinner with Emanuel and Axelrod, Obama heads to a $10,000-a-ticket DNC dinner fundraiser for 55 people at the Lincoln Park home of major Obama donors Craig Freedman and Grace Tsao-Wu.”

MCCUTCHEON BASICS.  Perkins Coie.

MCCUTCHEON SPEAKS: CAN YOU HEAR HIM NOW? WP. “The aggregate limits did not make any sense. It’s about freedom and your freedom of speech and your right to spend your money on as many candidates, parties and PACs as you choose. In a free country, we should be free to spend our money – especially on media and speech and disseminating ideas.”

DONORS BOLSTERED.  NYT.  “‘Today’s court decision in McCutcheon v. F.E.C. is an important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust, transparent political discourse,’ said Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which joined the lawsuit with Mr. McCutcheon.”

SPIKING THE FOOTBALL. The Hill. “Wednesday’s decision should give the parties more power.”

FIRST AMENDMENT WINS.  NRO.  “The Left hated the Citizens United decision, which was at its heart a case about whether an organization should be allowed to show a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the run-up to an election. It takes a particularly warped view of the relationship between citizen and state to conclude that justice and fairness require the censorship of those who would criticize men and women of great power.”

REPORTING FROM UK.  Daily Mail.  “The Supreme Court has struck down campaign donation limits that individual donors can make to candidates, political parties and political action committees  in a landmark ruling handed down today”

MORE, MORE, MORE. Volokh Conspiracy. “It seems important to note that the path of the Supreme Court’s campaign finance cases is in part caused by procedure — in particular, the statutes that provide for many campaign finance cases to be directly appealed to the Supreme Court.”

CCP HAILS. Here. “Today is a good day for democracy. The Court has put some teeth into the requirement that campaign contribution limits must have a legitimate anti-corruption purpose. This will make it easier for candidates and parties to raise funds and that is also a good thing.”

HYSTERICS ON HOLD. Forbes. “The response from the left and good-government types to the U.S. Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. FEC decision was immediate, hyperbolic and predictable.”

POLITICO COLLECTS VIEWS. Here.

WANT CHEESE WITH THAT?  Statement of Democratic FEC Commissioners.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING.  Ravel in NYT.

SUPREMELY DISAPPOINTED. WP. “The ruling shows two things: The Roberts Court’s destructive view on these matters wasn’t changed by the backlash to its Citizens United holding, and Congress must respond by designing new rules that can pass the court’s overly skeptical review.”

THE DANGER OF THE DISSENT. Volokh Conspiracy. “But how can liberals, who so expansively interpret other constitutional provisions, narrow the First Amendment so that campaign finance no longer gets protection?”

COLLECTIVE SPEECH REFERENCES. Althouse. “Number of times Justice Breyer uses the expression ‘collective speech’ in his dissenting opinion in McCutcheon: 1.
Number of times Chief Justice Roberts uses Breyer’s phase ‘collective speech’ —in quote marks — in his plurality opinion in McCutcheon: 4.”

SKY’S THE LIMIT.  TIME.  “In a landmark ruling on April 2, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court decided that limits on aggregate donations violated the constitutional right to free speech.”

FIRST AMENDMENT RESTORED.  Brad Smith.  “As the Court noted, some may find the existence of money in politics ‘repugnant,’ but ‘[i]f the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades…it surely protects political campaign speech.’ And if a government wants to regulate such speech — it better have a very good reason.”

HASEN: A HORRIBLE, NO GOOD, VERY BAD OPINION. Slate. “Third and most dramatically, the court seems to open the door for a future challenge to what remains of the McCain-Feingold law: the ban on large, ‘soft money’ contributions collected by political parties.”

MA:  STATE AGGREGATE LIMIT NO LONGER ENFORCED.  MA Office of Campaign & Political Finance.  “OCPF will no longer enforce the $12,500 aggregate limit on the amount that an individual may contribute to all candidates.”

NY:  WHAT MCCUTCHEON MEANS FOR NY.  NYstateofpolitics.com.  “Good-government advocates fear this morning Supreme Court ruling could have wide-reaching effects for New York’s own aggregate limits on campaign contributions in a given election cycle.”

SELF FUNDER REACTS. WFB. “The Supreme Court’s ruling did not, however, place any new restrictions on how much money a candidate can donate to his or her own campaign. That’s great news for Eldridge, who also happens to be the single largest contributor to the Eldridge campaign, having donated at least $715,000 of ‘his’ fortune thus far, according to the campaign’s most recent financial disclosures.”

NON-MCCUTCHEON LINKS:

THURS. FEC MEETING. The agenda is here.

CA:  PAYING LEGAL EXPENSES WITH CAMPAIGN FUNDS.  HuffPo.  “More than half a million dollars that donors intended to support suspended state Sen. Leland Yee’s (D) now defunct campaign for California Secretary of State may now be available for the scandal-ensnared politician to fund his legal defense.”

DC: COMPLAINT AGAINST MACHEN. City Paper. “In a letter to the D.C Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility today, attorney and Gray supporter Brian Lederer calls for the bar to consider sanctions against Machen.”

DC: WAS MACHEN FAIR? WP. “Like all crime-fighting superheroes, however, our Machen appears to have a potentially fatal flaw. Inside the prosecutor dwells a preacher whose penchant for proselytizing sometimes casts doubt on the lawman’s impartiality.”

GA:  ETHICS COMMISSION CONTROVERSY.  AJC.  “State ethics commission director Holly LaBerge testified Wednesday that it wasn’t necessary to subpoena records in an investigation into Gov. Nathan Deal’s campaign because his attorney would give them voluntarily.”

MD: SAVE THE DATE COMPLAINT. WP. “Brown cried foul after a Gansler fundraising consultant sent an e-mail Tuesday asking recipients to put dates on their calendars this month for a reception in Silver Spring and a breakfast in Frederick.”